The judiciary has set many states and institutions on fire. The judiciary has set Imo state on fire and up till now, people are wondering how a person who was not a candidate of his party be declared the governor”.
“The judiciary has so many questions to answer. If they fail to answer those questions within a short time, we will create a hall of shame for those judges that come up with some judgments and that could happen soon” – Above is another perspiring, not even aspiring, ‘lawyer’; the forever, ethnically-motivated politician, Joe Ajaero, always pretending to Labour Leadership as he gallivants all over the country, spreading some partisan nonsense until he met more than his match in some no nonsense Imolites.
It is interesting that matters pertaining to the same Imo state has claimed another victim with a member of the inner bar being fined for what the Supreme court described as his frivolous and vexacious motion.
Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) is, of course, far too rich to feel the pinch of a ‘mere N40M’ fine. Being a senior lawyer, however, and a professor of Law, to boot, those lawyers always eager to handle cases they should, otherwise, have advised their clients to run away from will, at least, see this as a learning curve.
Had the courts, the Apex court in particular, made samples of some of those who specialise in making lurid comments about the judiciary, an example being Joe Ajaero and his ‘hall of shame’ proposal, some sanity would have since been restored in this perennial war against the Nigerian judiciary.
Yes granted that there has been some back and forth in the matter of whether or not the Apex court can reverse itself, it was obvious in this particular case, that what Chief Ozekhome was trying to do was renew, in a somewhat refined manner, Obidients’ determined effort to mess up the judiciary. This he will deny, even laugh at, being who he is, but millions would see it as further delegitimising the apex court.
But like the Yoruba would say:’ti omode ba gbon ku, iya e a gbon si’, meaning that if a devious child died cleverly, the mother will cleverly bury the remains. The supreme court has, through this case, proved that it will not help those who are eager to put it into disrepute.
That is the lesson Professor Ozekhome should learn from this macabre case in which he claims that all he wants of the court is a consequential order.
Even if the Supreme Court had cause to reverse its dismissal of GTBank’s appeal against a N2.4 billion judgement given in favour of Innoson Motors Nigeria Limited by the Court of Appeal in Ibadan, Oyo State, the court, not eager to aid its traducers, found it advisable, this time around, to revert to its decision in the appeal filed by Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, on the same Imo state governorship matter wherein Justice Ariwoola, with the concurence of the other seven panelists, minus one, held as follows:”A judgement or order shall not be varied when it correctly represents what the court decided nor shall the operative and supportive part of it be varied and a different form substituted,’ quoting Order 8 Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules. “It is settled law, he continued, that this court has no power to change or alter its own judgement or sit as an Appeal Court over its own judgement. It is clear from the tone and the wording of the instant application that what is being sought is asking the court to sit over its own judgement already delivered and executed. That is certainly beyond the competence of this court. It is not disputable that the jurisdiction of the court is derived from the Constitution and an Act of the National Assembly. There is no constitutional provision for the review of the judgement of the Supreme Court by itself. And, therefore, once it delivers its final judgement, the Supreme Court, subject, of course, to the slip rule principle, it becomes functus officio in respect thereof.”
A Daniel has, indeed, come to judgment. Otherwise, I would urge the reader to momentarily consider what amount of opprobrium would have descended on the court, and the Nigerian judiciary, in general, had Ozekhome had his way, and what helluva challenges an obviously, security – challenged Imo state would have had to contend with, having to navigate afresh, the debacle that would have been brought down on it.
A sample of that opprobrium on the Nigerian judiciary is Kano state NNPP’s thoughtless petition to some foreign bodies claiming “that there are moves to truncate the will of the majority of the people of the state regarding the mandate given freely to its governorship candidate on March 18, 2023”.
If one may ask, what exactly are they afraid of, and why would they seek to intimidate the Supreme court rather than allow it decide on the two issues of its candidate’s eligibility and the number of votes not duly processed.
With the respected Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, holding that only 1,886 ballots were without signature and stamp, as against the 165,616 votes deducted from Governor Yusuf’s votes by the Appeal court, I cannot see any reason for scaremongering which was all the party resorted to by unnecessarily externalising an internal matter. Under no circumstances should Nigerians allow the judiciary to be turned to an object of derision as politicians would willingly do.
I digress.
While at this, I think we should spare a thought for the very poor job the National Assembly is making of its legislative function. Why, for instance, should a political party, any party at all, forfeit the right to present candidates in an election when the rightful person to punish was the man who was out to create a political dynasty by making his son-in – law succeed him as Imo state governor?
To worsen matters, the same man was, in the same election cycle, heading to the Red chamber.
While the National Assembly may not have foreseen all this, it should, at least, have realised the oddity in punishing a whole political party for the sins, and capriciousness, of an individual. In this particular case, it is Uche Nwosu, Governor Rochas Okorocha’s ‘candidate’, who should have been barred from contesting the election, and not any other party or person.
And who says that the eminent jurists of the Supreme Court, in their collective wisdom, did not advert their minds to this obvious idiocy of punishing a political party, with millions of members, and rather opted for the more commonsensical option of deciding in favour of the candidate with the highest number of votes?
It is safe to conclude this piece by saying that even this heavy quantum of the fine imposed on Mike Ozekhome, SAN, will not end this profitable business of filing frivolous and vexatious motions. After all, a certain Ambrose Owuru, a 2019 presidential candidate, was also fined N40M by the Court of Appeal, Abuja, for filing a frivolous suit, seeking to prevent the swearing – in of President – Elect, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, on May 29, 2023.
All one can confidently say, however, is that lawyers who are hard of hearing, and would not relent, will always have their day in court.
